August 30th is commemorated as the “International Day Against Enforced Disappearances”, but tributes are merely ceremonial. The Government hasn’t proven commitment towards the protection, enforcement and promotion of human rights, for example by establishing human rights strengthening regulations on a national level.
The Convention Against Enforced Disappearances, signed by Indonesia at the 65th Session of the 2010 UN General Assembly, hasn’t been regulated through national law. Although the enforceability of any international law product regulated by the treaty itself, including the 1969, 1978 and 1986 Vienna Convention, do not require national regulation, it is well known that Indonesia adopts the primacy of national law, consequently international products can be governed and applied nationally. Law Number 24 of 2000 on International Treaties states that the substance of human rights is stipulated by law.
One excuse was the convention wasn’t included in the National Legislation Program. International treaties are qualified as open- cumulative bills that needn’t be agreed into the program. Regarding commitment, the government should remember its one to enter the ratification into the 2010-2014 National Action Plan for Human Rights, supposedly supported by Parliament. On 28 September 2009, they recommended that the Government alone should ratify; elongating the process for a convention with such potential. Urgency is caused by our awareness towards humanity; to erase enforced disappearances. Past violations (especially in 1997-1998) should remain disclosed. A Presidential Decree on the establishment of a Human Rights Ad hoc court was also encouraged but still not implemented. Human Rights commitments of the Government and Parliament should be consistently insisted for future generations as responsibility towards the historical regime of today. (MSG)
LRWD I N D O N E S I A
Law Reform Weekly Digest
Edition 30/September/2013
Parliament
Ratification: An Affirmation of Commitment
In This Issue
Ratification: An Affirmation of Commitment
Parliament
Legal Policy
Retracing the Wealth of State Officials
Questioning the Ethical Conduct of Inspection towards Judges
Supreme CourtIndonesia LRWD is published by Indonesian Centre for Law and Policy Studies
(www.pshk.or.id). This weekly newsletter provides info, updates, and analysis on law reform in Indonesia. To subscribe, please contact [email protected].
Commemorating Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto: A Professor of the People
Obituary
Obituary
Commemorating Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto: A Professor of the People
Indonesia mourns the loss of one the country’s many brilliant minds; Professor Emeritus Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto, M.P.A.
Born in the city of Madiun, East Java, in 1932, Professor Tandyo (as many would call him) first dove into the academic world studying Law at Universitas Airlangga (UNAIR), Surabaya. This was then followed by a scholarship for Government Studies and Public Administration at the University of Michigan in the US. As founder and first Dean of the Faculty of Social and Political Studies of UNAIR, his expertise in such fields made him entrusted to become a member of the National Commission on Human Rights (KOMNAS HAM) as well as Chairman of the Board of the Law and Society Association (HUMA).
Starting lecturing at UNAIR the 1960s focusing on the sociological aspects of humanity, he contributed countless ideas towards the enforcement of human rights in Indonesia. Even so, his teachings weren’t only limited to the students; often opening up to the public, informing them on civil rights. He gave a public lecture to Lapindo mudflow victims in 2008 and also contributed his profound knowledge in a Lecture Series held by the Indonesia Jentera School of Law earlier this year.
One trait his pupils will always remember was his humbleness and simplicity, staying determined to his priority of developing the social sciences to better the state of the people.
“I have no activities, except keeping myself busy,” said the winner of 2011’s Yap Thiam Hien Award, given by the Foundation for Human Rights Studies. Even after his retirement, he continued to actively address legal, political and social issues. He exhaled his final breath on 2 September 2013, after being hospitalized at Elizabeth Hospital in Semarang. Even so, his wisdom will continue to be key references for scholars, politicians and the public alike.!(AW)
Legal Policy
Retracing the Wealth of State Officials
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono inaugurated General Moeldoko as the new Indonesian Military Commander on 30 August 2013 at the State Palace in Jakarta. What caught the public’s attention related to this was the General’s wealth of Rp. 36 billion. As a state official, he is obligated to report his wealth thoroughly, stipulated in Law Number 28 Year 1999 on State Officials Clean and Free from
Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism, Law Number 30 Year 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission, and the Corruption Eradication Commission Decision No.: KEP 07/
KPK/02/2005 on Registration Procedures, Investigations and Announcements of State Officials Wealth Reports.
During the fit and proper test, Moeldoko was required to answer questions on his wealth, explaining that his father-in- law granted a large amount. Still, he should be able to explain the source. In Indonesia, state officials with large amounts of wealth in State Officials Wealth Reports is not a problem, so long as the source is not suspected of deriving from money laundering or criminal acts. The sanction would be imprisonment for 20 years maximum and a maximum fine of Rp. 10 billion.
Different countries mean different regimes. In Australia, they have Unexplained Wealth Law; a relatively recent
development in confiscation law, which require a person who lives beyond their apparent means to justify the legitimacy of their financial circumstances. If the wealth exceeds the standard lifestyle calculations, assets will be confiscated. To reclaim, they must explain the sources.
Although the approaches are many, the goal is the same;
anti-corruption and eradicating money laundering. (RMF)
Supreme Court
Questioning the Ethical Conduct of Inspection towards Judges
The judiciary branch of Government is the weakest of the three. Its operational function strongly relies on the other branches, therefore it can be stated that its source of power derives from people’s respect towards it. This comes from the impartial and independent attitude exhibited by its judges, both in and out of court.
Currently, the Indonesian judiciary has lost its public’s respect. One of the main reasons is the corruptive attitude of court officers. This has also contributed to the
diminishment of judicial independence. Nowadays, judges are easily submitting to public opinion, threatened by means of the media, and the worst-case scenario is the threat of being reported to the judicial supervision institution, be it internally or externally.
The supervision process has now surpassed its limit and tends to threaten judicial independence. Many judges are being punished based on distaste towards their verdicts rather than based on their professionalism. The main issue of supervision lies in the judge’s ethical code, which gives room for supervisors to base inspections on verdicts instead of behavioural offence evidence. Therefore, an important agenda to save judiciary independence is to revise the judge’s ethical code by erasing provisions that justify inspections based on given verdicts instead of the judge’s behaviours. (GAT)
